AronRa
Administrator
I googled the words, 'reason rally' and was not at all surprised to see that several Christian groups intend to flood the national mall to prostelytize the heathen infidels. Amusingly some of them are using the term 'TRUE reason' -as if yelling the word, 'TRUTH' conceals the apparent lies they believe with such fervor. Some of them are even writing a book for speedy publication as a 'response' to an event that hasn't even happened yet. How is that for preconceived notions?
Anyway the post that I want to address here was directed at me, albeit not by name. On a website with a most ironic name was the heading, Reasoning with Unreason. Therein is a reference to one of my videos, although they made sure not to include a link to it.
Of course we needn't stop there, because if you look at the entire history of religious claims, you will see a complete failure rate in all attempted applications. Prayer doesn't work. Faith healing doesn't work. And if you try either one instead of seeking medical care, you children will die of easily curable ailments, and you will go to jail for negligence. There has never been a single credible proponent of miraculous creation anywhere ever, because there has never been one time in the history of science when supernatural explanations have ever turned out to be correct. In every instance that could be tested, the original supernatural explanations have always turned out to be wrong, and the real explanation has always revealed whole new fields of fascinating study previously undreamt of. While we can point to a great many demonstrable facts of evolution, cosmology, history, genetics, and medical science which all ally against religious belief, there has never been even one fact that any religion could prove to be true about their particular beliefs over those of any other religion. So it is true that science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know anything. Every explanation that was ever verifiably accurate has always come from science, where religion has always only ever failed and failed consistently. It is literally a case of the blind leading the blind.
How do we know this? Several ways: First, all different avenues of science tend to independently verify each other, all honing in on the same ultimate reality, just like a game of Twenty Questions. Religion on the other hand starts off at random points and continuously shards off every which way such that there is no apparent truth to any of them, despite the fact that they all pretend to be the "one true" faith -even when they agree on little or nothing. Any one god might give completely contradictory revelations to different people in the same denomination! The only consistency some religions have is their own internal contradictions. They are indistinguishable from the illusions of delusion. They either offer only unsupported notions without evidence or precedent which can neither be verified or disproved, or they offer testable claims which have already been disproved many times many ways. There is no third category for claims made by religion which turned out to be correct. That is pretty compelling evidence that it is not true to any significant degree at all.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." [Hitchens]
Negative claims do not require negative evidence. In science there is only what is supported and what is not supported by evidence, and that which is not supported does not yet warrant serious consideration. Christians know this, and are perfectly comfortable stating as fact that there are no leprechauns or fairies in the garden -for this very reason. Why the double-standard when the same logic is applied to their god?
Likewise, let's say I walk into a public school just before class lets out, and I state as fact that there is a man with a gun parked outside. This is one of those instances where my comment would be taken seriously, and some investigation would ensue. There are lots of folks in cars outside. When pressed for details as to which car I mean, what would happen when I tell the police that I don't know? What would happen if I said that any of them MIGHT have a gun, and that they should prove to me that there is NOT a man with a gun in any of those cars?
Now even though I live in an area where it is actually probable that one or more of these cars actually would have a concealed weapon on board, my claim would still be dismissed as a false alarm,and I would be called a liar. That is how it should be.
I would think this is plainly obvious to everyone. However regardless of the fact that my logic is consistent, and that I do not permit the double-standards which faith-based believers depend on, Christians still criticize me for using "rotten" logic and "embarrassingly poor" reasoning. Why? What else can they do? Admit that I am obviously right? Of course not. They have to make up some excuse to project their own faults onto those who will not share them. I describe this as "the pot calling the silverware black".
This article says I deserve to be "called out" for being more honest than they can be, more honest than they can admit that I am. They don't phrase it that way of course. To complete their defensive reaction against my unassailable logic, they provided a link to a second video claiming that ...
[you're gonna love this]
I don't think I'm the one with embarrassingly poor reasoning or rotten logic. Neither do I have to make up excuses like this in an attempt to conceal lies. I am free to be completely honest.
Anyway the post that I want to address here was directed at me, albeit not by name. On a website with a most ironic name was the heading, Reasoning with Unreason. Therein is a reference to one of my videos, although they made sure not to include a link to it.
Yes. Not only is the positive alternative not evidently true,because there is no evidence to support that assertion. But having no reason to believe something is the same as having at least one good reason not to believe it.TheThinkingChristian said:
Of course we needn't stop there, because if you look at the entire history of religious claims, you will see a complete failure rate in all attempted applications. Prayer doesn't work. Faith healing doesn't work. And if you try either one instead of seeking medical care, you children will die of easily curable ailments, and you will go to jail for negligence. There has never been a single credible proponent of miraculous creation anywhere ever, because there has never been one time in the history of science when supernatural explanations have ever turned out to be correct. In every instance that could be tested, the original supernatural explanations have always turned out to be wrong, and the real explanation has always revealed whole new fields of fascinating study previously undreamt of. While we can point to a great many demonstrable facts of evolution, cosmology, history, genetics, and medical science which all ally against religious belief, there has never been even one fact that any religion could prove to be true about their particular beliefs over those of any other religion. So it is true that science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know anything. Every explanation that was ever verifiably accurate has always come from science, where religion has always only ever failed and failed consistently. It is literally a case of the blind leading the blind.
How do we know this? Several ways: First, all different avenues of science tend to independently verify each other, all honing in on the same ultimate reality, just like a game of Twenty Questions. Religion on the other hand starts off at random points and continuously shards off every which way such that there is no apparent truth to any of them, despite the fact that they all pretend to be the "one true" faith -even when they agree on little or nothing. Any one god might give completely contradictory revelations to different people in the same denomination! The only consistency some religions have is their own internal contradictions. They are indistinguishable from the illusions of delusion. They either offer only unsupported notions without evidence or precedent which can neither be verified or disproved, or they offer testable claims which have already been disproved many times many ways. There is no third category for claims made by religion which turned out to be correct. That is pretty compelling evidence that it is not true to any significant degree at all.
Wrong. "Positive claims require positive evidence." [Sagan]
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." [Hitchens]
Negative claims do not require negative evidence. In science there is only what is supported and what is not supported by evidence, and that which is not supported does not yet warrant serious consideration. Christians know this, and are perfectly comfortable stating as fact that there are no leprechauns or fairies in the garden -for this very reason. Why the double-standard when the same logic is applied to their god?
Wrong again. Either way, it is still a lie. If I were to say,for example- that evolution never happens, or that the earth is only a few thousand years old, either of those would be lies. They are evidently NOT true because absolutely all of the evidence indicates otherwise.
Likewise, let's say I walk into a public school just before class lets out, and I state as fact that there is a man with a gun parked outside. This is one of those instances where my comment would be taken seriously, and some investigation would ensue. There are lots of folks in cars outside. When pressed for details as to which car I mean, what would happen when I tell the police that I don't know? What would happen if I said that any of them MIGHT have a gun, and that they should prove to me that there is NOT a man with a gun in any of those cars?
Now even though I live in an area where it is actually probable that one or more of these cars actually would have a concealed weapon on board, my claim would still be dismissed as a false alarm,and I would be called a liar. That is how it should be.
I would think this is plainly obvious to everyone. However regardless of the fact that my logic is consistent, and that I do not permit the double-standards which faith-based believers depend on, Christians still criticize me for using "rotten" logic and "embarrassingly poor" reasoning. Why? What else can they do? Admit that I am obviously right? Of course not. They have to make up some excuse to project their own faults onto those who will not share them. I describe this as "the pot calling the silverware black".
This article says I deserve to be "called out" for being more honest than they can be, more honest than they can admit that I am. They don't phrase it that way of course. To complete their defensive reaction against my unassailable logic, they provided a link to a second video claiming that ...
[you're gonna love this]
...despite the fact that the Bible both establishes and enforces misogyny, and despite the fact that slavery is wholly endorsed in both the old and new testaments.
I don't think I'm the one with embarrassingly poor reasoning or rotten logic. Neither do I have to make up excuses like this in an attempt to conceal lies. I am free to be completely honest.
. What people should have a political agenda? Everyone should have it, politics are for everyone and we should all make our voices heard, after all, most of us live in democracies which depend on people engaging in politics.